The major problem with this discussion is the absence of data.< snip> But we don't have those figures; so it would make sense to err on the side of caution.

Totally agreed.

OK.

Quote

But... In what way are we assuming there's a need to err on the side of caution in a way we've rejected for every other non-typical sexual orientation? We don't assume (as much anymore) homosexuals "groom" people to brainwash them into thinking gay sex is okay.

That seems rather obvious to me, Albeto. If a parent is gay, or a rubber fetishist, or into BD/SM, or watches porn, there is no potential risk to their child. The parents sex-life should take place behind the bedroom door, and it doesn't involve the child.

Paedophilia is the exception; there is a risk that the boundary between the parent's sex-life and the child will be violated - because the paedophile wants the child to be in the bedroom.

Quote

You bring up adoption and I think that's a fair point about growing intimacy with children living in the home, but living with a child day in and day out renders them more like family than not, so I would suspect that element would be reduced. But again, we have no data (or I don't know of any), so I'm just wondering why this group is considered more dangerous than others.

As we've agreed, we don't have enough data - therefore, it would be sensible to err on the side of caution until we have more.

The data problem again; I don't know whether paedophiles are in fact less trustworthy.

That's exactly why I can't simply agree and be done with it. I don't mind being wrong, I just want a reason to hang my hat on, know what I mean?

We should get more data; but until then, erring on the side of caution seems sensible.

Quote

And for me, the emotional repulsion isn't a valid reason because it's too subjective and not, in and of itself, indicative of a reasoned argument.

The reasoning is that while children are going through puberty, they need to be protected from people who are more powerful than them and who could exploit their vulnerability i.e. people considerably older than them.

Societies which recognize this legislate close-in-age exemptions for teenagers, usually 24 or 36 months. Very sensible, in my opinion. And people's gut feelings reflect this.

Quote

A gynecologist has a woman in an enormously vulnerable position. Such a doctor could quite easily take advantage of the situation for his/her own sexual gain.

There's always a risk. And of course, you're not obliged to see a gynecologist at all if you don't want to take that risk. A child adopted by a paedophile has no choice in the matter.

Quote

Right - it's loaded in that you're essentially asking, albeto, are you okay with putting your four year old daughter in the tub for a pedophile to bathe?

Yes, that's the question, though my question was more detailed...

Quote

I'm damned if I say yes, then I expose myself as some kind of sick mother who would willingly offer her child up for rape (which is the scenario I interpret you to be implying).

I wasn't implying that; in my scenario I specified that no assault takes place. Again:

Quote

Would you be happy for a (true) paedophile to bathe your 4-year-old daughter? Even though he assured you that he would never act on his sexual feelings for her, and that he would ignore his erection? And let's say he's trustworthy and he keeps his word - though he goes off later to masturbate alone about the experience. Would you be cool with that?

It's not a trick question, Albeto. And I'd still like to know your answer.

I think so in that it distracts the conversation from the kind of person who fits the legal definition of pedophile by virtue of being sexually attracted to young adults (post pubescent), to a conversation about a four year girl old being emotionally groomed for sex with an adult man.

I am really losing patience with this discussion comparing the “orientation” of pedophilia with the orientation of homosexuality.

Let’s point out some of the obvious differences.

Gay men and lesbians can engage in consensual sexual relationships and find partners with whom to enjoy healthy emotional and sexual relationships.

The only people who seem to think that they should repress these urges are some fundamentalist monotheists. And most of us here probably feel a combination of distress, and perhaps occasionally amusement, at their attempts to repress their real sexuality. And they often fail. When Christian preachers bring male escorts on business trips (to carry their luggage) and Republican politicians pick up men in public restrooms, we smirk or shake our heads, and wish they would/could just embrace their sexuality and stop being such hypocrites. History demonstrates that folks who try to repress their real sexuality, often fail.

But when we talk about pedophiles, we are assuming that they of course should and can repress these urges. And maybe they can. For a year. Five years. Ten years. Twenty years. Maybe for a whole lifetime. But maybe not. I think my example of priests in an earlier post is an excellent illustration. They try to repress it. They try hard. And some may in fact succeed for a lifetime. But there is ample evidence to prove that often, they are not successful at repressing their sexual drives. And children are damaged. Forever.

In terms of your defenseless coma patient, yeah, coma patients are subject to abuse. From predatory individuals, or individuals with fetishes related to being attracted to dead people or unconscious people. But normal gay (or straight) men are not going to rape a coma patient.

First of all, because most people are just not attracted to comatose people. But more importantly, because they are able to find consensual partners, for one night stands, or for forever relationships.

Gay men and lesbians (even more than straight people) are seeking encounters with peers. Pedophiles are not seeking relationships with peers. The power imbalance between who they are and who they are sexually attracted to is significant.

They are not parallel situations. I refuse to talk about pedophilia like a civil rights issue. It is recognized as a mental health issue, and I don’t see any reason to treat it as anything else.

Thank you! That is what i was trying to say.

Logged

Me:What are you looking at Eminem?Brother: Nothing, Harry Potter.

I love to read books, just not your Bible. i support gay rights and women's rights. Why? Because i'm tired of the hate, stupidity, and your desire to control us all and make up lies.

If a person was known to be sexually attracted to helpless coma patients, they should not be allowed near any helpless coma patients. The word to conjure with here is "helpless".

And that is the point about kids. We can argue about whether a 15 or 16 year old is helpless in terms of adult interactions with 18+ year old people. We don't have to argue about 10, 11 or 12 year olds. There is physical, emotional and psychological damage done when kids are put into adult roles too early. Some of the damage is irreversible.

This is like the debate over whether women should be able to get birth control. Is this 2012?

It does not matter if a girl got her period at the age of 10 (like one of my daughter's friends). It does not matter if she has started to develop physically. It does not matter if there are adult men who are attracted to her. Most females start getting attention from adult males way before they are ready to handle it.

A girl is not ready for a sexual relationship at 10. And any adult who thinks a child of that age is the equal of an 18+ year old in terms of sex is truly a sick person. That is why children have parents to protect them until they are old enough to protect themselves.

This is a very difficult thread for me, since I was an abused kid. I am trying to be calm and rational, but it is not easy. The Vulcan Death Grip reflex toward child abusers is almost overwhelming. You might say that I would not be the best person to counsel or assist convicted pedophiles.

Joe thinks that if a girl has had her first period then she's ready to have sex:

Don't tell people what I think. You can tell people what I've said, but don't assume you know what I think.

More pointless pedantry. As your quote begins with the words "I think that", I believe I can accurately introduce it with the words "Joe thinks that".

What I said is "I think that if they were able to get pregnant, that proves that they were ready to have sex." I did not say "I think if a girl has had her first period then she's ready to have sex." So don't tell people that's what I think because it's not remotely an accurate assessment of what I said.

The fact that this individual had chosen to engage in sexual activity speaks to her individual readiness. You're missing a key component there, she chose to do it. Other girls who had not made that choice yet are most likely not ready. So, again, do not tell people what I think.

The fact that a girl can become pregnant - which can happen pretty early - does not necessarily mean that she is mature enough to be a mother, same as the fact that a boy can get a girl pregnant does not necessarily mean that he is mature enough to be a father. It's about more than just biological readiness, in other words. The ability to successfully have sex doesn't mean anything other than the ability to successfully have sex.

Perhaps you can tone down the circle jerking long enough to remind yourselves that I made that comment in reference to Timo's comment about 8th grade girls getting pregnant from boys around their own age. 8th graders are on average 13, that is not precocious puberty nor did Timo imply that the girls were abused.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

The fact that a girl can become pregnant - which can happen pretty early - does not necessarily mean that she is mature enough to be a mother, same as the fact that a boy can get a girl pregnant does not necessarily mean that he is mature enough to be a father. It's about more than just biological readiness, in other words. The ability to successfully have sex doesn't mean anything other than the ability to successfully have sex.

Do you think that the fact that some of these girls made a choice and believed themselves to be ready implies some level of readiness over their more coquettish contemporaries?

Also, would you agree with this statement?

The fact that a girl is 18 does not necessarily mean that she is mature enough to be a mother, same as the fact that a boy who is 18 is not necessarily mature enough to be a father. It's about more than just age, in other words. The age of 18 doesn't mean anything other than the age of 18.

« Last Edit: July 21, 2012, 11:30:39 PM by joebbowers »

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Not really. Think of maturity as being like a bell curve. Certainly, there are going to be outliers, like a twelve-year old who's got the physical and mental maturity of an adult, or a twenty-five-year old who still isn't quite mature enough to really be an adult. I don't think it'd be at all reasonable to base legal maturity off of either extreme, even though there will be individuals who could qualify at twelve and other individuals who wouldn't really qualify at twenty-five. It would have to be based on roughly where the middle of the curve was.

I won't pretend to know exactly where the middle of the bell curve lies, as I'm not a sociologist, but I'm pretty sure 14 is still rather shy of it. Especially given that physical maturity doesn't even start in some cases till 12 or 13. Girls might mature faster than boys, but that's not a good enough reason to change the age of consent or the age of majority either.

The point is that most 18-year olds are physically and mentally mature enough to act as adults. Not all, by any means, but most in my opinion. There isn't anything especially significant about 18 except that it's far enough along the bell curve.

With respect to the "pedophile vs gay" comparison in general - an adult man is considered responsible for his own actions; he can legally consent to sex.

We all know that. This has been repeated and addressed about eleventy billion times now.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are similar in that they are both involuntary sexual attractions. The subject did not choose to have those feelings. Do I seriously even have to continue explaining that? I feel like that should be a known fact at this point in the discussion.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Not a big fan of this thread/minefield, however I would like to bring up a point regarding proximity and urges when dealing with one's children or those one is charged to protect...

Some/most? men factor in sexual characteristics when choosing their partners. They select traits they find attractive. If a man is a 'leg man', and he's fortunate enough, he will pair with woman who has the kind of legs he fancies.

They have children, one of whom is a daughter. She inherits her mother's gift. As she matures, the man, now a father, must see his daughter walk around the house in shorts and skirts. Are most fathers driven mad by this? Do most fathers respond as heatedly at the sight of their daughter's legs as they did their wife's? I'm a father. The answer is no. I had friends who were fathers. Their daughters began to resemble their wives. They never appeared to be either heated or bothered by their daughters' appearance. The only thing I ever felt is pride. I recognized the gift my daughter had inherited from my wife, and was only more in awe of my wife for having passed on such good genes to our daughter.

When one cherishes someone in a protective way, one looks at them differently than one does a potential mate. One's charges are sacrosanct. Despite one's predilections or appetites, one disqualifies those whom we are here to protect and nurture, despite whatever sexual qualities they may have.

With respect to the "pedophile vs gay" comparison in general - an adult man is considered responsible for his own actions; he can legally consent to sex.

We all know that. This has been repeated and addressed about eleventy billion times now.

Homosexuality and pedophilia are similar in that they are both involuntary sexual attractions. The subject did not choose to have those feelings. Do I seriously even have to continue explaining that? I feel like that should be a known fact at this point in the discussion.

Joe,

If you would like to continue using the “orientation argument,” and continue to draw parallels between homosexuality and pedophilia, (with the caveat that pedophiles just have to go through life repressing their sexual urges) then you need to address the fact that there is ample evidence that a significant percentage of people who try to repress their sexual urges fail to be successful in doing so, and in the case of pedophilia, children are irreparably damaged.

The Harvard Medical School article which I cited earlier, entitled “Pessimism about Pedophilia,” states that “Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way.” http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/July/pessimism-about-pedophilia You can disagree with the studies they compiled, and I certainly can’t speak to the methodologies used in those studies. But I also cited well-known examples of groups of people with an invested interest in repressing their “sexual orientation” including supposedly celibate priests accused of, or convicted of child sexual abuse, and fundamentalist religious leaders and right wing politicians with an invested interest in repressing their homosexual tendencies, who failed to successfully repress those urges and fell into career-ending scandals as a result.

Do you dispute these realities as well, Joe?

Your opinions also diverge from those of the mainstream medical community (who classify certain categories of convicted child abusers as having an “orientation” for pedophilia) in terms of classifying this orientation. The mainstream medical community considers those born with this difference in their brains as having a mental illness.

Joe, you are really hard on the theists who come here and cherry pick from science and scriptures to create a hybrid world view that supports what they want to believe. Perhaps you should examine your own tendency to cherry pick from science and porn apologists to create a hybrid world view that supports what you want to believe.

You said "not really", but then proceeded to agree with the statement anyway. You are saying that reaching the age of 18 does not guarantee an individual is mature enough to be a parent.

Given that I said that even some individuals aren't mature enough to be parents at twenty-five or older, you could say I acknowledged the validity of that statement. However, the point I was making, which you dodged, by only addressing the specific fact that I acknowledged your statement, was that you can't point to the fact that some individuals might be mature enough to be considered adults at a certain age, and set the societal baseline at that age. But you also can't wait until they all are. My personal feeling is that if more than half of the individuals of a certain age are considered mature enough to function as adults, then that should be the baseline for being legally considered an adult. If that were at fourteen, so be it. But it's probably not at fourteen.

The fact that a girl is 18 does not necessarily mean that she is mature enough to be a mother, same as the fact that a boy who is 18 is not necessarily mature enough to be a father. It's about more than just age, in other words. The age of 18 doesn't mean anything other than the age of 18.

This is true. Hell, I was still a Christian at 18. Talk about stupid.

But I pretty much agree with jaimehlers on this one. I would imagine that jaimehlers agrees with your above statement. So do I, obviously. But rules are hard to apply fairly to the masses. I, personally, think that 18 is a good line to draw. For the extremely immature 20 year olds, we can't accomodate them. For the overly mature 14 year olds, we can't accomodate them either. Sometimes people have to just be thankful that they live in a society that doesn't cut their clitoris off and/or arrange their marriage/life for them.

To all the overly mature 14 year old women out there:

You should be thankful for the freedom that you do have, and wait 4 years. But, if you can keep your mouth shut, meet me behind the school at around 8:00PM.

If you would like to continue using the “orientation argument,” and continue to draw parallels between homosexuality and pedophilia, (with the caveat that pedophiles just have to go through life repressing their sexual urges) then you need to address the fact that there is ample evidence that a significant percentage of people who try to repress their sexual urges fail to be successful in doing so, and in the case of pedophilia, children are irreparably damaged.

And why do I need to address that? Whether it's true or not, it wouldn't change the fact that it's an involuntary sexual attraction like homosexuality.

The Harvard Medical School article which I cited earlier, entitled “Pessimism about Pedophilia,” states that “Several reports have concluded that most people with pedophilic tendencies eventually act on their sexual urges in some way.” You can disagree with the studies they compiled, and I certainly can’t speak to the methodologies used in those studies.

We've been over this. That study is garbage, the writers even acknowledge the massive holes in their data. Their study is bad and they should feel bad.

But I also cited well-known examples of groups of people with an invested interest in repressing their “sexual orientation” including supposedly celibate priests accused of, or convicted of child sexual abuse, and fundamentalist religious leaders and right wing politicians with an invested interest in repressing their homosexual tendencies, who failed to successfully repress those urges and fell into career-ending scandals as a result.

Your opinions also diverge from those of the mainstream medical community (who classify certain categories of convicted child abusers as having an “orientation” for pedophilia) in terms of classifying this orientation. The mainstream medical community considers those born with this difference in their brains as having a mental illness.

I've said it's something you're born with, and not a choice, which is exactly what the part I bolded says. I disagree with their opinion that it is a mental illness. They used to consider homosexuality a mental illness too.

Quote

Furthermore, you completely dismiss the evidence which I cited that demonstrates that changes in the brain, such as tumors, chemical and surgical interventions, and other changes to the brain, can in fact turn on or turn off urges related to pedophilia.

Pedophilia is involuntary, obviously that means I know that it's the result of something physiological. When did I ever deny that? However it's embarrassingly laughable to state that "tumors cause pedophilia" when that's maybe happened a couple of times, out of all the millions or billions of pedophiles that have ever lived.

There was a story about a man who had a stroke and when he woke up in the hospital he was gay. I certainly believe that could be true as homosexuality, like pedophilia, has a physiological cause. However if someone told me that "homosexuality is caused by a blood clot in the brain" I would call them a fucking idiot.

Joe, you are really hard on the theists who come here and cherry pick from science and scriptures to create a hybrid world view that supports what they want to believe. Perhaps you should examine your own tendency to cherry pick from science and porn apologists to create a hybrid world view that supports what you want to believe.

You are the one cherry picking sections of studies that support your point, while ignoring the sections of those very same studies that specifically warn against making the conclusions you make because the authors know their data is limited. Then you completely ignore multiple studies from multiple sources conducted across the world that have concluded that decrminalization of child pornography would lead to fewer victims. Then you dismiss the opinions of experts, including federal judges, as "porn apologists". I am carefully weighing all of the evidence and drawing logical conclusions. You are carefully excluding and avoiding any evidence that conflicts with your theories.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

My personal feeling is that if more than half of the individuals of a certain age are considered mature enough to function as adults, then that should be the baseline for being legally considered an adult. If that were at fourteen, so be it. But it's probably not at fourteen.

How do you define mature enough to function as adults?

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Lemme guess, you intend to nitpick whatever I answer so that you can legitimately claim that a 14-year old would qualify, yes? I was very unimpressed with your little word game in the other thread, specifically "So you don't think it's hypocritical to say that a 14 year old is not capable of making decisions like an adult and should be protected but a 14 year old is capable of making decisions like an adult and should be punished?". I am even less impressed by your attempt to paint me as a hypocrite with your little wordplay, suggesting that I think the same 14-year old is simultaneously not capable of making decisions like an adult, and capable of making decisions like an adult.

I'll be happy to answer, once you've shown that you're not going to try to play word games with my response.

Perhaps you should be more specific when offering your point of views so we don't have to ask for clarification. You are way to vague with your omissions and "I never said" bull crap.

Considering that you teach English and obviously have a strong command of the language, I don't think it's too much to ask for.

Unless, of coarse, your goal is to show us our hypocritical ways through this painful process. I am about to open up a different can of worms by introducing a right wing Christian fundamentalist argument.

You are trying to lead us to understand and embrace tolerance of pedophilia using already accepted philosophy in regards to homosexuality. It is vital to your demonstration to link our acceptance of homosexuality and other non main stream sexual preferences to pedophilia in order to show us our hypocrisy. You chastise us closed minded fundamentalist prudes for not seeing things all the way through, for not coming to your high minded amoral codes of conduct.

You use the same argument against us that we use against right wing bigots. Yet...you have called for all Christians and believers of a higher power to be cleansed from the earth. You claim that a belief in a higher power is tantamount to brain damage.

Joe...why can't you extend the same level of tolerance and understanding to people of faith that you do for adults who have a desire to fuck children[1]?

You know Joe, when you disagree with data that is presented to you, you’ve got a tendency to declare “we’ve been over this” and then restate your position, while entirely ignoring the data. It is an irritating argumentation style because you consistently dismiss arguments or data that conflicts with your worldview, and then just restate your opinion and bulldoze forward as if it were fact.

In this case, however, it is blatantly not true. We have not “been over this” before. I have not seen you post a single response to the content of Harvard study entitled Pessimism about Pedophilia, that I posted on Friday. I suspect that you haven’t read it. But you clearly believe that you are in a position to state:

That study is garbage, the writers even acknowledge the massive holes in their data. Their study is bad and they should feel bad.

You want to make the researchers “feel bad” Joe? Really? Ok then.

Perhaps you are confusing the Pessimism about Pedophilia article with a different article I posted a few months back, published in the Harvard Medical Journal, on a topic pertaining to relationship between pornography and child abuse. You dismissed the study by linking an unpublished article that some economics professor had written on the topic, and declared victory. You see Joe, I do you the courtesy of reading the articles you link.

But all of this running around in circles distracts from the questions that are of real importance. Joe, you have said repeatedly that pedophiles can and do control their urges. And yet inconceivably high numbers of children continue to be raped and sexually abused on a global level.

Your suggestions so far, to address this problem have included 1) Increasing access to child pornography, so that potential abusers can watch children being abused, and hopefully the act of viewing the rapes will have the effect of quenching, rather than amplifying their sexual desires, and 2) Lowering the legal age of consent so that children who want sex can have it without endangering their adult partners.

As a father, who has done such extensive research on this topic that you can laugh at the inaccuracies in studies conducted by Harvard and the Mayo Clinic, is that the best you can offer?

I'll be happy to answer, once you've shown that you're not going to try to play word games with my response.

You've said that you don't consider a 14 year old a responsibile adult, yet you think a 14 year old should held responsible and be tried an adult. Is is really "word games" to think there is a conflict there?

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

You use the same argument against us that we use against right wing bigots. Yet...you have called for all Christians and believers of a higher power to be cleansed from the earth.

This is inaccurate. I said religion should be cleansed from the earth, and I specifically described the process of education and marginalization that would accomplish it.

Quote

You claim that a belief in a higher power is tantamount to brain damage.

Those aren't my words, but it's more or less accurate.

Quote

Joe...why can't you extend the same level of tolerance and understanding to people of faith that you do for adults who have a desire to fuck children?

Are you serious? Religion is intolerance. Why should I tolerate intolerance? And understanding? Oh, I understand them quite well. Better then they understand themselves. I understand the history, source, and doctrine of their religions better than they do. It's a proven fact that atheists know the bible and the history of Christianity far better than Christians.

Belief in God is voluntary and people hold onto that belief despite a complete lack of supporting evidence and mountains of opposing evidence. Many of the teachings of Christianity are harmful such as xenophobia, homophobia, racism, sexism, discouraging education, medicine, and science. Religion has lead to most of mankind's major problems such as war, poverty, overpopulation, pollution, rape, and hey guess what else? Child sex abuse. Many pedophiles are religious, and combination of pedophilia and religion is doubly dangerous. Both the Bible and the Koran condone child sex and even child rape. Religious organizations protect child predators.

Pedophilia is involuntary, a condition one is born with. Like a tendency towards addictive behaviors such as alcoholism, it is manageable but may be a lifelong struggle to avoid giving into temptation. That struggle may be easy for some, and some will fail. But we must recognize that it is essentially a medical condition and respond with therapy and understanding, not harsh punishments.

For those that try to self-medicate, using child pornography to abate their sexual desires, we should applaud them for making the conscious decision to not harm an actual child. Locking them up in prison is insanely stupid, it is punishing them for doing the right thing. As the sentence for possession is typically longer than the sentence for actually raping a child, what are we teaching them? Hey, next time don't bother with the porn, we're going to lock you up anyway, you might as well rape a real kid and your sentence will be even shorter.

Logged

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Pedophilia is involuntary, a condition one is born with. Like a tendency towards addictive behaviors such as alcoholism, it is manageable but may be a lifelong struggle to avoid giving into temptation. That struggle may be easy for some, and some will fail. But we must recognize that it is essentially a medical condition and respond with therapy and understanding, not harsh punishments.

For those that try to self-medicate, using child pornography to abate their sexual desires, we should applaud them for making the conscious decision to not harm an actual child. Locking them up in prison is insanely stupid, it is punishing them for doing the right thing. As the sentence for possession is typically longer than the sentence for actually raping a child, what are we teaching them? Hey, next time don't bother with the porn, we're going to lock you up anyway, you might as well rape a real kid and your sentence will be even shorter.

Having one drink is not alcoholism, nor is it detrimental to society.You seem to be objectifying children to the level of a beer bottle.Nobody is interested in protecting beer bottles from beer drinkers.The self-medicatation argument is laughable.Child pornography is child pornography because hold the beer bottle... contains children.I know this may seem cute to you or whatever to establish yourself as somewhat of a normal and beneficial member of society especially at WWGHA, but arguing that a child be objectified in the manner in which you convey is sickening.Pedophiles are not objects, they are adults who exploit children.I have identified you as a pedophile and any treatment that encourages castration or cerebral modification I am in favor of.I do not enjoy having to communicate with you, but I unlike you ( as per your response to my question about when to prepare your children to defend themselves against sexual predators ) want to integrate into a healthy society, free from child exploitation.It may take small steps, but I am willing to take them.... are you?Should we punish people for exploitation of children yes.Should we punish people for exploitation of drinking beer no.It is ultimately a choice that people drink beer, but like I said nobody is fighting for the rights or barely and hops, or potatoes for that matter.

Question for whoever agrees with this ^^^^ Who would be featured in this child porn? How about your kids?

I think it's probably true. Would I do as you ask? Absolutely not. I have no interest in child porn, do not support it in any material way, and think it to be a 'wrong'. Am I trying to stop it? Embarrassingly, no.

It should be noted however, that I often find a conflict between what I believe is right, correct or true, and what I would be willing to do in regard to it.

For instance, I believe that eating and wearing animals is 'wrong'. I tried to be a vegetarian for a few years, but I ultimately failed. So I do what I believe to be wrong because doing what is right is too difficult. I drive around on leather seats, and eat meat without much thought.

You mentioned elsewhere that you served in Desert Storm, a war that I wholeheartedly supported, but would I have joined up? No. I would have lacked the will and courage. I could not pull a trigger.

I have no strong feelings about the death penalty, and further think that putting an end to a murder's life is not something I object to, but... I would NOT pull the switch.

No need to point out that I am morally flawed. I'm well aware. As I believe I've intimated elsewhere, I probably have more contempt for myself that anyone here is likely to muster for me.

Anyway, not sure where you were going with the question, but I figured I try and give you a complete answer.

I still don't get how drawn porn can be considered child porn. They're not real kids, and it's not a real situation. It's a drawing. Sounds to me like someone has a problem differentiating reality from fiction.

Logged

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.